Constructive gadfly
Published on November 27, 2004 By stevendedalus In Philosophy

Oft times the religious coalition assails “rogue” jurists for preëmpting state laws by substituting their own legislation. To some degree the religionists are correct, however much they themselves foist their minority opinion on legislation.

Given that the Massachusetts’ supreme court went too far in recognizing marriage of same sex couples, it is clear that it should have ordered the state to consistently acknowledge civil union protection under the equal rights clause by rendering legitimate ritual and permanence to these relationships without violating the sanctity of the term marriage, together with the same rights to common law relationships lasting beyond, say, five years.

That said, the Christian Coalition never acknowledges — after all, it is a minority — that it preëmpts the separation clause at will. The separation clause is as sacrosanct as “marriage under God” granted to those of faith and therefore the so-called IRS “marriage penalty” for those who opt out of a joint return should be rescinded. Further, the joint return, traditionally limited to married couples should either be extended to civil unions as well since the IRS considers this a fair economic partnership, or rescinded altogether as a violation of the separation clause if the term marriage is to take on the implication of an act of God.

Abortion, too, has been made into a matter of religion when in fact it is a matter of personal choice with respect to physical and emotional health as well as economic. The Coalition has every right as a matter of religious conscience to object to paying proportional taxes for government sponsored contraception and abortion clinics. However, is the Coalition also prepared to permit half the country against the current war to refuse proportional taxation geared to the defense department, or for religious people sending their children to sectarian schools to refuse the levy of public school tax?

The fact is a matter of conscience should not play a role in legislation or protest at all. No special privilege should be granted to a “religious” conscience either. This does not imply that an enlightened government does not attempt to accommodate those with legitimate beliefs, yet when push comes to shove, such as a draft, a conscientious objector, for instance — even if a Quaker — must be conscripted for war. Then it is up to the particular armed service to decide to chance the deployment of such in a combat zone. Conscience is a matter of the self’s free will and its god or contemplative spirit, and not dictated from a group. When the self conflicts with its environment, it is free to reject it provided it does not interfere with the laws of the land. A case in point would be a peaceful anti-war or anti-abortion demonstration.

There is, however a demarcation between conscience and rationality. Arguably the war in Iraq is insane, yet all aspects of government approved it and therefore is within the framework of law — good or bad — and however irrational, it was not a vote of conscience but rather poor judgment even though some votes were cast to stop the spread of terrorism, the preservation of Israel, a crusade against Islam, or regime change. Nor can conscience rear its head when it comes to the cultural divide: religious conscience should not play a role in preëmpting a show, such as “Desperate Housewives” but rather on the rationale of “common decency” and the necessary intellectual engagement of what constitutes decency and for whom. But as long as there is a choice — no one has to watch it — there can be no argument since freedom of expression takes precedent in order to protect the “sanctity” of the first amendment just as it protects the likes of O’ Reilly and Frankel, or the lack of common decency in the wilful violence and sex of films or TV shows, though normally children are shielded either by parents or government.

Cultural conscience is dangerous because it undermines the concerted will of constitutional law. The cultural divide is a non sequitur for an ostensibly united people. Celebration of one’s culture in the spirit of diversity should never preëmpt the American culture. Granted a day or so put aside is fine as long as they are simple celebrations and not a message to subvert the parent culture of unity preserving the language and founding heritage of tolerance and justice in common.

                   

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: November 27, 2004.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments
on Nov 27, 2004

just dropping by to read and admire


mig XXX

on Nov 27, 2004
SD:

I agree with most of your takes, and certainly your position on these issues.

Still, I'm not sure abortion is purely a religious debate. And while I agree that in the end, in most cases, it should come down to personal choice, I also think that it makes little rational sense (how's that for a redundancy?) to declare abortion as a personal choice.

The most important point you make is this:

Celebration of one’s culture in the spirit of diversity should never preëmpt the American culture.


This is the conflict that many of the so-called "moral" issues develop, and sides are drawn based on where one stands on the religious bias. Law, in general, is made to organize societal culture, in order to allow people to live together. There are several systems throughout history that have succeeded to some extent, ranging from tribal anarchy to a singular throne of authority to variations on people's government. Ours obstensibly is a people's government, where laws are created to strengthen the middle, to create an umbrella culture for several cultures-- and also to protect individuals who fall through the cultural cracks.

So, concerning issues like abortion and single-sex marriage, we need to view the conflict like this: the overall conscience of our umbrella culture will dictate the policy, while the law will protect those who fall through the cracks. To say "the consitution says this or that", or "the letter of the law reads this or that" makes little productive sense to me. In a people's government, the constitution needs to evolve with the umbrella culture, and should be free to do so. It's not the words or the parchment or the signatures on the original declaration, on the constitution, that make it a worthy document, but the spirit.

Right now, our cultural conscience seems to say that abortion is not a wholly moral choice, and neither is same-sex marriage. While I tend to disagree with both positions, especially the latter, it is clear to me that the majority, though perhaps not a huge majority, agrees with these positions. Therefore policy should reflect a like-minded conscience. However, "law" should understand that everyone needs to be protected. Same-sex marriage needs to be legal; abortion needs to be legal--and if policy currently disagrees, it can peacefully protest however it sees fit.

on Nov 29, 2004

Tab: I gave you an insightful for your marvelous thinking; however, the "umbrella" of a particular culture should not be given priority over general culture prescribed by law that is designed to preserve the dynamic of the land geared to the development of fairness and tolerance, together with a strong identified national will, and to set aside their individuated hang-ups. Still, you are right that the spirit of the law is what matters and the  text open to modification, provided it does not violate the spirit. 

I am honored, Mig.

on Nov 29, 2004
Well said.

Stay around; join some discussions. I see that you have been a local for awhile. The discussions around here feel a little, er, biased. It's good to have someone here with some, er, perspective.

TBT




on Nov 30, 2004
Thanks, I'll try to stay around.